Appeal No. 1999-2539 Page 4
Application No. 08/328,895
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the first Office action (Paper
No. 4, mailed September 28, 1995) and the answer (Paper No.
26, mailed January 11, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 25, filed November 16, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No.
27, filed March 3, 1999) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007